Relto - ccgadayhttp://relto.org/taxonomy/term/2
enCCGaDay Day 30: Favorite CCGs Of All Timehttp://relto.org/node/33
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>At last! We have reached the end.</p>
<p>Obviously, my favorite game of All Time has to be Star Trek: First Edition. It's the game I started with, and the game I've spent the most time with over the last twenty years. And if I had to pick a reason why, it would be that it's the only game that has a solid strategic aspect to it. While most games rely on the randomization of your draw deck, 1E gives you a seed deck to establish your defences and strategy.</p>
<p>My honorable mentions:</p>
<p>Babylon 5 has been our go-to game for multiplayer. We've yet to find a better CCG that supports 4-6 players, and it's use of cards to enhance the political horse-trading necessary to win is something I've yet to see matched.</p>
<p>Magic, obviously is the lingua franca of CCGs. It's not my favorite for gameplay, but I can't deny that they've kept finding ways to keep the game fresh over the years. </p>
<p>Lord of the Rings, which was my other "main" CCG for quite a few years. And I always enjoyed the shadow mechanic (where the more you spent on your good guys, the more your opponent could spend on the villians to slow you down)</p>
<p>And the list could go on and on, with all the games I've enjoyed over the years. CCGs are fun, after all. :)</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Tags: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">ccgaday</a></li></ul></div>Tue, 30 Sep 2014 04:00:00 +0000Allen33 at http://relto.orghttp://relto.org/node/33#commentsCCGaDay Day 29: Rarest CCG Ownedhttp://relto.org/node/32
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>Well, this is a bit of a weird one - CCGs, for all their talk of rarity and collectability, aren't actually that rare. Even Magic, first "Alpha" set - the first CCG run ever, had a print run in the millions. And while rares from that set can be expensive, there's still a thousand of them - each. The popularity is much more from demand than from supply generally.</p>
<p>So, I've got a ton of rare cards, but so does everyone else. Even the promo stuff, like the Fajo Collection and the Future Enterprise, aren't exactly "rare" - there are multiple people in town with copies of those. </p>
<p>The same logic applies to the games themselves. I'm the only person I know with copies of a few games (Tomb Raider, SimCity, Mythos comes to mind), but considering I bought those games in stores, I would be amazed if I was the only person around who bought them. (I certainly didn't pre-order them).</p>
<p>So, if we're talking single cards, it's probably something that's been signed - Kim has an oversized Gimli signed by the actor. And I'm sure he signed a mess of those as well. But it's the only one I know of in town. (Certainly the only one signed "To Kim").</p>
<p>And really, it's a bit of a silly question - CCGs only work if you have someone to play with. Having a rare game is like having the only videophone in town, y'know?</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Tags: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">ccgaday</a></li></ul></div>Mon, 29 Sep 2014 04:00:00 +0000Allen32 at http://relto.orghttp://relto.org/node/32#commentsCCGaDay Day 28: Most memorable gamehttp://relto.org/node/31
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>This one is another one that I didn't participate in, and it's another Regionals story. Might actually be the same Regionals as yesterday's story.</p>
<p>My wife played a lot more Trek than I did, and she was a solidly good player. (She was known for building diabolical mission stealing decks). For this regional, she ran a Patrol Neutral Zone deck, that had various tricks to kick the opposing player out so she could score 60 points per mission. (This was before Charvanek and the other PNZ counters). It was decently fast and brutal.</p>
<p>And then she gets paired against a player running the same deck. The entire spaceline is Neutral Zone missions, which means each PNZ mission is worth enough to win the game. And both players know that the other is going to try and steal a mission for the win.</p>
<p>Now, I'm checking out the other games, doing my judge rounds, and I come back to them about 20 minutes in... and they're still seeding dilemmas. Ten minutes later (half an hour into a one-hour game) they're just finally finishing. (It might actually have been longer).</p>
<p>And they're having an absolute blast, because the seed phase has turned into this massive poker game, as they try to bluff each other as to which missions are getting the good dilemmas and which are getting the easy ones. </p>
<p>The game itself ran two turns, I think. (I don't even remember who won; just that the player who went first chose poorly and got stopped by a wall. The second player chose better and solved.) But it was considered a real nail-biter by all parties involved.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Tags: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">ccgaday</a></li></ul></div>Sun, 28 Sep 2014 04:00:00 +0000Allen31 at http://relto.orghttp://relto.org/node/31#commentsCCGaDay Day 27: Strangest game playedhttp://relto.org/node/30
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>I'm not what anyone would call a "competitive player". I mean, I like winning as much as anyone, and I always try to win in games. But when deckbuilding, I'm always more interested in nifty mechanics or unusual ideas than eking out that last bit of advantage. So I've ended up playing some very strange decks over the years (the Death Star Nine deck comes to mind), and sometimes they turn out to be really good (I'm not sure if I'm allowed to play League of Non-Aligned in B5 still.)</p>
<p>But the strangest game I can think of is one that I judged but didn't play in. And it's so *much* stranger than any game I've played (and makes for a far better story) that I'm going to cheat and use it here.</p>
<p>One of our players (we'll call him "Olav")[1] was arguably our best player. (I'd say he was the best, but there are definitely those who would argue. And would be wrong.) He specialized in extremely fast and extremely fragile decks, and tuned them to a knife's edge. The sorts of the decks that were beautiful to watch, and terribly annoying to play against. </p>
<p>For instance, he is the author of the infamous "Frool" deck. I'll skip the drawn out description and get to the good part - it was a deck that was extremely difficult to beat, unless you knew he was playing it. If you knew, you could take two very simple actions at the beginning of the game, and he was completely hosed. It was the ultimate one trick pony, and it would only work for one tournament. </p>
<p>So, he picked Regionals that year - we still made a point of enforcing the "no scouting" rule, so he could bring his unknown deck, beat the unsuspecting field and take the title. His plan is <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Series/TheMiddleman">sheer elegance in its simplicity</a>.</p>
<p>And for the swiss rounds, it works. Players after player fall to it's trick, and amazingly, everyone agrees to keep the secret - and I suspect it's less about the "no scouting" rule, and more about respecting that it was a brilliant idea that could only work once. Wanting to be part of history, I suppose.</p>
<p>But, Olav forgot one detail - Decipher at the time mandated "Final Confrontations" for major events. Instead of the winner of the Swiss rounds being declared the champion, the top two players played one additional game, and the winner *there* was declared the champion. </p>
<p>What this meant for Olav was that he had to play one additional round to seal the deal, and it was against someone he'd already played. Someone who knew what the trick was, and knew what the counter was.</p>
<p>So, sitting down for the final game, we're all pretty sure that Olav is completely screwed - but he's been known to pull rabbits before,</p>
<p>What's worse, we have a mess players who have no-where to go for the hour, because Olav, myself, and the third player are <em>all</em> drivers for out of town players. And since we were going to have an after-game dinner, everything is on hold until this game is done.</p>
<p>Game starts. Seeding as normal. The other guy immediately takes the counter-action to stop Olav's combo. Everyone expects Olav to concede, but he keeps playing. And he's playing very very deliberately. Full shuffles after every download, thinks about his actions. Even attempts some missions (and failing miserably, because the deck is rubbish at mission solving). Other player works through his missions, and just before solving the last mission to win the game, Olav flips a hidden agenda... that doesn't have the icon.</p>
<p>Illegal play, automatic game loss. Which makes zero difference to the actual game score. It just means Olav spent 45 minutes killing time to troll the assembled group. There's stunned silence, then some muttered swears, and then people start filing out because dammit, it's late and we want supper before driving three hours home.</p>
<p>[1] totally his real name</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Tags: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">ccgaday</a></li></ul></div>Sat, 27 Sep 2014 04:00:00 +0000Allen30 at http://relto.orghttp://relto.org/node/30#commentsCCGaDay Day 26: Game I'd like to see a new/improved edition ofhttp://relto.org/node/29
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>Before last year, this would have been an easy choice - Netrunner. It's a brilliant game, asymmetrical game play, balanced on a knife edge, and impossible to find. And then Fantasy Flight released a new edition last year as a LCG, so, that's taken care of.</p>
<p>So, since my long-standing choice has actually come to pass, what game would I want to see next?</p>
<p>Weirdly, I think I'd want a game I don't own much of. It's pretty much impossible to make a new edition without breaking backwards compatibility, so ironically I'd prefer a game that I enjoyed but didn't invest much in - because I wouldn't be throwing too much money away. Also, it'd need to be a game that would benefit from a new edition - cleaner rules and templating, modern design sensibilities. </p>
<p>With all that in mind, I think it'd have to go with Aliens vs Predator. There's a lack of good 3-player games in the market, and not a lot of territory control games either. So there's certainly a market available. And I could see a reimplementation solving the problems of the original game (tweaking a couple cards, cleaning up general weirdness in the rules).</p>
<p>And hopefully, it's been enough years that the licensing isn't a pain in the arse to get.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Tags: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">ccgaday</a></li></ul></div>Fri, 26 Sep 2014 04:00:00 +0000Allen29 at http://relto.orghttp://relto.org/node/29#commentsCCGaDay Day 25: Favorite card templatehttp://relto.org/node/28
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>I'm not enough of an art grognard to really get into the nuts and bolts of what makes a good card template, but as the Supreme Court says, I know it when I see it. And while there might be some newer games with better templates (I think Magic and Pokemon is on their third or fourth major template change each, and that's not counting the fancy alternate art versions), I can think of one game that got a cool template on the first try: <a href="http://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic224124_md.jpg">X-Files CCG</a>.</p>
<p>All the cards have that same art style of "case files", and it does really help sell the game. It also helps that the information is set up in a decent way. Keywords across the left side (with card-type at the top left), stats across the right. (The cost in the bottom-right is a bit of a modern no-no, but this was 1996. We can cut them a bit of slack.) </p>
<p>The game itself was quite interesting (ithe rumor is that the game died not because it didn't make money, but because the company made *more* money just selling regular playing cards), but the template has always been a favorite of mine.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Tags: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">ccgaday</a></li></ul></div>Thu, 25 Sep 2014 04:00:00 +0000Allen28 at http://relto.orghttp://relto.org/node/28#commentsCCGaDay Day 24: Favorite CCG No One Wants to Playhttp://relto.org/node/27
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>Given that I have a closet full of out-of-print CCGs, it's fairly easy to find any given game that no-one wants to play. </p>
<p>But I do have one that no-one wanted to play while it was in print: <a href="http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2169/arcadia-wyld-hunt">Arcadia</a></p>
<p>Published by White Wolf, it had the idea of having no starter decks, just two different types of packs. Also, it took the "board game using cards" motif to it's extreme, putting a character card in packs that folded up into a little cardboard pawn (to move around the board).</p>
<p>The basic concept was this: you opened your Character Pack. It has a character card (along with the aforementioned "pawn"), and a bunch of merits and flaws. You built your character by adding merits (and using flaws to offset the point cost). Then, you opened your Story Pack. This one had Leagues (different locations) and Quests (which is how you scored points and win the game). But each player only needed one of each pack to start playing. (Obviously, more packs meant more options.)</p>
<p>It was a cool idea (and probably ahead of it's time, seeing as it wasn't until City of Heroes that anyone else would try a starter-less CCG). The problem came in two parts.</p>
<p>First, it meant that stores needed to stock two *different* types of booster packs for each set. And this is 1996, folks - a lot of comic book stores were carrying these because it made money, not because they cared what was in them. So it wasn't uncommon to find a store that had Story Packs but no Character Packs or vice versa, and the game was unplayable without both. </p>
<p>Second, the sorting in the packs was a bit sketch, and you could end up with characters that couldn't be made useful. Worse, you could get a Story pack with a Quest that you didn't have the Leagues to complete! </p>
<p>Also, while it had some neat ideas, it was essentially a CCG trying really hard to be an RPG and ended up in that terrible middle-ground of not very good. And thus, I'm pretty sure I'm the only guy in the neighborhood who ever bought the stuff.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Tags: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">ccgaday</a></li></ul></div>Wed, 24 Sep 2014 04:00:00 +0000Allen27 at http://relto.orghttp://relto.org/node/27#commentsCCGaDay Day 23: Most complicated CCGhttp://relto.org/node/26
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>Well, damn. Back on <a href="http://www.relto.org/?q=node/9">day 7</a>, I talked about SimCity CCG as a complicated game. Completely forgetting that two weeks later, "complicated" was the term to use.</p>
<p>And when we're talking complicated, SimCity really is tops. But, we've already used it, so time to dig into some other games.</p>
<p>Complicated is a weird term, though. It can mean "lots to keep track of" (which SimCity qualifies as in spades), but that's not the only way a game can be complicated.</p>
<p>Take Magic, for example - the Comprehensive Rules for that game run several hundred pages - and have a disclaimer telling players *not* to read it. But if you buy a theme deck of Magic, it'll show you the rules on one-side of a poster. So, is it complicated or not?</p>
<p>The answer involves how a game <em>deals</em> with complexity. Magic is a pretty simple game at it's heart, and each block has three or four mechanics to teach you. Nothing too terrible. But if you take the entire history of Magic (which the comp rules do), you now have to explain *all* the mechanics. And how those mechanics interact with each other. And those really terribly-written cards from Alpha. You end up with a massive rulebook, but like a dictionary you never actually need to know all of it.</p>
<p>Trek 1E is more complicated - you need to hold more of the rules in your head. But again - the core game is pretty simple. Play cards, fly around, encounter dilemmas. The difference is that Trek never did a major re-write of the rules (so there's old 90s era idea in there), and unlike Magic, it's far more likely that you're using old cards - which means you need to deal with all those old interactions on a far more common basis.</p>
<p>I've always said that complexity and depth are different things. Depth is good in games - it adds replayability and strategy. Complexity is the price you pay for depth, and you want to make sure that it's spent wisely. SimCity has the problem that all it's complexity is really just number-crunching for scoring. It's the sort of thing you make a computer do. So the game suffers because instead of thinking about your next move, you're trying to count things. </p>
<p>Magic reduces complexity by cycling out old cards - you can add a new trick to care about here, and the game isn't more complicated because you removed an old trick at the same time. (At least in Standard or Block play - the assumption is that if you've got enough cards to play the larger formats, you've been around long enough to know what you're getting into). </p>
<p>The other trick for complexity is that a mechanic that "makes sense" can actually be complicated, but the player generally doesn't notice it (or more properly, it doesn't add a cognitive burden). Take cloaking in Trek 1E - I think there's 10 or 12 bullet points on what happens when you cloak. But it boils down to "you're there, but hiding". The bullet points deal with the mechanical implications, but most of the time you just need to know that you're invisible but still at the location. Keywords and consistent templating are good ways to hide complexity as well, by bundling complex concepts in simple, easy-to-remember wordings.</p>
<p>Of course, you can actually make your game more complicated if you screw this up. Being inconsistent with wording on cards is probably the #1 culprit. Having two cards that do the same thing, but are worded differently means that the player not only has to think twice about the same thing, they'll constantly be looking for the difference ("why does it say Y instead of X? It must do something different form X, right?"). The other culprit is overusing keywords by attaching too much (or too many different) mechanics to it. At that point the player can't remember what the keyword does (removing the advantage), plus since it's not written out on the card anymore, you have to pause the game to go read the rulebook! (Worth noting that Magic uses keywording a lot, but they put the short form of the rules as reminder text, just in case.)</p>
<p>All this has real-world implications as well - when you're teaching a game, you're trying to get a player hooked quickly. If they're new to CCGs, too much fiddly bits will scare them off. If they're already playing a game, you don't want them deciding that it's too much work to figure out a New Game. (Keep in mind that D&amp;D is still around after all these years is because some players just can't be bothered to learn a second system. Magic has a lot of inertia that way as well).</p>
<p>An example. </p>
<p>The last three weeks have pretty much established that I play a lot of games. A lot of that is because I'm a rules junkie - I love seeing different mechanics at work. So, one year (apparently 2003 according to BoardGameGeek) I get sat down for a demo of Cyberpunk CCG. I likes the Cyberpunk, and I'm hoping to see something resembling Netrunner. OK, it's in the same universe, but it's different, that's fine. Then we get to character cards, and there's one who's a "Med-Tech". (The word is printed on the card). Turns out that there's a whole pile of gametext hiding behind that label. Two different abilities, and no hint on the card. And *all* the character types have extra abilities. And no hints on the card. That's when I bailed as politely as possible. (I think we'd already tackled a mess of other mechanics, and it was the last straw - I just have the memory of flipping through the little card-sized rulebook and going "yeah, I'm not going to want to remember all this").</p>
<p>So, moral of the story - complicated games aren't necessarily bad, if they handle it properly. And learn to do proper demos.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Tags: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">ccgaday</a></li></ul></div>Tue, 23 Sep 2014 04:00:00 +0000Allen26 at http://relto.orghttp://relto.org/node/26#commentsCCGaDay Day 22: Coolest Looking CCG Producthttp://relto.org/node/25
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>There's a lot of stuff that game companies do to increase collectability. Foils are common, for instance. (If memory serves, Magic still prints an entire parallel foil set for the crazies to chase after every four months.) </p>
<p>But let's be fair - CCGs just don't have the options for fancy game parts that RPGs do. (For instance, D&amp;D had a limited run of <a href="http://doctorstrangeroll.wordpress.com/reviews/gale-force-9-dungeons-dragons-dungeon-masters-keep-ultimate-dms-screen/">DM screens</a> - my local DM has one, and it's impressive as all heck.) And while t-shirts and bags are neat (my Ambassador bag has held up wonderfully over the years), they're not exactly common.</p>
<p>Besides, there's plenty of cool things you can do inside the game, and the first thing that came to mind was this:</p>
<p><img src="http://lotrtcgwiki.com/wiki/_media/cards:lotr01001t.jpg" /><img src="http://lotrtcgwiki.com/wiki/_media/cards:lotr04301t.jpg" /></p>
<p>Decipher, for various promos, would reprint cards in Tengwar (the script that the One Ring is in). And the images I found here do not to the real ones justice. They just look awesome. Now, they're terrible to actually <em>play</em> with, since no-one actually reads the language (and after being away from the game for a while, you look at them and go "wha?"). </p>
<p>But very very pretty and cool.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Tags: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">ccgaday</a></li></ul></div>Mon, 22 Sep 2014 04:00:00 +0000Allen25 at http://relto.orghttp://relto.org/node/25#commentsCCGaDay Day 21: Favorite Licensed CCGhttp://relto.org/node/24
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>This is a weird one for CCGs, since it's hard to find a non-licensed game (as opposed to RPGs, where a lot of the core game systems - D&amp;D, GURPS, Fate, to name three off the cuff - are unlicensed, and the licensed stuff tends to hover around the fringes (either using another game's system, or having their own cheap knockoff).</p>
<p>So, to make this interesting, let's rank my top 5 licensed CCGs, using the metric of "how much space they take in my closet".</p>
<p>1. Star Trek CCG - most of it is First Edition, but I do still have a bit of Second Edition from the launch. (I've never been one to throw out perfectly good CCG cards!). The core collection is in a series of binders, and then overflows into boxes of various shapes and sizes. Easily the game I own the most of.</p>
<p>2. Lord of the Rings CCG - now, this is technically my wife's collection (she was the local contact for those events while I handed Trek. It's a family business, don'tcha know). Another row of binders, but we don't have the excess of overstock.</p>
<p>3. Babylon 5 - while this isn't stored at my house (thank goodness), that's a duffle-bag full of binders that our friend stores (since B5 really needs each player to be a different faction, we've had a single "gaming group" collection forever and a day.) </p>
<p>(Magic would slot in here, since my collection is a small box of cards from a sealed deck, and a large box of theme decks - but it's not licensed, so it don't count. Also Munchkin is up to a large box, but it's not a CCG.)</p>
<p>4. .hack//ENEMY - we had a binder full back in the day, but this jumps up because a year or two back we decided that that the daughter needed to know the joy of booster packs, so we bought five boxes of cards for a rainy day. (Also, Kim and I liked the game). And then she went into Pokemon. *headdesk*</p>
<p>5. (tie) Netrunner / SimCity / Tomb Raider - I have 800-count boxes of all of these, but no binders. A lot of these cards I bought on the cheap because I liked the game, but we were never seriously into it. (Note that I mean the <em>original</em> Netrunner, not the FFG relaunch.)</p>
<p>Everything else is in isolated boxes, and cataloging them all would take forever.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Tags: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">ccgaday</a></li></ul></div>Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:00:00 +0000Allen24 at http://relto.orghttp://relto.org/node/24#comments